MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979542567 · doi:10.1097/rli.0b013e318226c427

In Vivo Characterization of Changing Blood-Tumor Barrier Permeability in a Mouse Model of Breast Cancer Metastasis

2011· article· en· W1979542567 on OpenAlexaff
Dean B. Percy, Emeline J. Ribot, Yuhua Chen, Catherine McFadden, Carmen Simedrea, Patricia S. Steeg, Ann F. Chambers, Paula J. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Radiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsIn vivoBrain metastasisPermeability (electromagnetism)Breast cancerMetastasisMagnetic resonance imagingBlood–brain barrierMedicinePathologyEx vivoCancer researchCancerInternal medicineChemistryCentral nervous systemBiologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The current lack of efficacy for any chemo- or molecular therapeutic in the treatment of brain metastases is thought to be due, in part, to the heterogeneous permeability of the blood-brain-barrier (BBB). Little is known about how heterogeneous permeability develops, or how it varies among individual metastases. Understanding the BBB's role in metastasis will be crucial to the development of new, more effective therapies. In this article, we developed the first magnetic resonance imaging-based strategy to detect and measure the volumes of BBB permeable and nonpermeable metastases and studied the development of altered BBB permeability in metastases in vivo, over time in a mouse model of breast cancer metastasis to the brain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Animals bearing human experimental brain metastases of breast cancer (231-BR cells) were imaged, using 3-dimensional balanced steady-state free precession to visualize total metastases, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted spin echo with gadopentetic acid (Gd-DTPA) to visualize which of these displayed contrast enhancement, as Gd-DTPA leakage is indicative of altered BBB permeability. RESULTS: Metastases detected 20 days after injection showed no Gd-DTPA enhancement. At day 25, 6.1% ± 6.3% (mean ± standard deviation) of metastases enhanced, and by day 30, 28.1% ± 14.2% enhanced (P < 0.05). Enhancing metastases (mid: 0.14 ± 0.18 mm, late: 0.24 ± 0.32 mm) had larger volumes than nonenhancing (mid: 0.04 ± 0.04 mm, late: 0.09 ± 0.09 mm, P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the growth rates of the 2. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of brain metastases were uniformly nonpermeable, which highlights the need for developing treatment strategies that can overcome the permeability of the BBB. The model developed herein can provide the basis for in vivo evaluation of both BBB permeable and nonpermeable metastases response to therapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative RadiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207